Do Bangladesh deserve Test Status

[Athlai]

SL debut Senanayake FFS 48W @ 22.41 in A team matches.

 

[Mike5181]

SL debut Senanayake FFS 48W @ 22.41 in A team matches.

Even worse Athlai. Sajeewa Weerakoon has 61 wickets @ 22.16.

 

[Athlai]

Even worse Athlai. Sajeewa Weerakoon has 61 wickets @ 22.16.

Weerakoon is old though. Old people don't deserve to play Tests. Fact.

 

[Athlai]

Whats probably most interesting is to compare the Sri Lanka A team prodogies against the ones who actually play Tests.

Herath A team: 123W @ 27.83
S Prasanna A team: 7W @ 34.71
Mendis hasn't played any
Randiv hasn't played any

Moral of the story is that if you want to play Tests for SL and you aren't Herath, never play A team games.

 

[M0rphin3]

Let them play more FC games, they have quite a few decent players emerging in FC, so imo they can compete with lower ranked teams sooner or later.

 

[Athlai]

Let them play more FC games, they have quite a few decent players emerging in FC, so imo they can compete with lower ranked teams sooner or later.

A couple bats are coming through but there isn't all that much to get excited about on the bowling front.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Is taking Test status away from them likely to help?

Does "Test status" really need to be an honorific?

z

 

[Hurricane]

Another suggestion: merge teams of BD, Zim, Ireland, Kenya, Nambia (iirc), Holland, etc to make one test team called the 'associates'

I think this is a good idea combining all the associate teams. Would give people in Canada/Kenya and all the associate countries that have no shot at test cricket something to shoot for if they are good enough.

That said - it is not good for the national interests of the individual associates - they want to play as nations. I think the solution is just having Zimbos and Bangers play at home. As I posted earlier bangers need Siddons back as well. Also why is Zimbos being dragged into this - I thought thanks to Brendon Taylor that they were very competitive against the number 8 ranked side.

 

[andruid]

Why don't Test teams open their domestic competitions so that the players with most potential reach. In quality they have inside them irrespective of where in the world they come from. We know at the end of the day the overall standard of domestic cricket in all nontest nations and some test ones will never challenge some of these prodigies to mature enough to play at their maximum capability. Look where 10 years of taking advantage of the Bosman rule has done to the overall standard of Ireland's play. Its not a coincidence that the most consistent players for Bangladesh, Kenya, Holland etc have at least One season of County Cricket in their past.

 

[marc71178]

They already do, but only the best players get in (owing to a limited amount of spaces available) - the only domestic championship with enough spaces really is the English, and when the best Associate player is only really a mediocre county player, there's no wonder nobody else gets a go, to put it simply, they're not good enough.

Not sure what you mean by the Bosman ruling and Ireland, can't see any link at all between freedom of contract for individuals and an International team "taking advantage" of it.

 

[andruid]

They already do, but only the best players get in (owing to a limited amount of spaces available) - the only domestic championship with enough spaces really is the English, and when the best Associate player is only really a mediocre county player, there's no wonder nobody else gets a go, to put it simply, they're not good enough.
Not sure what you mean by the Bosman ruling and Ireland, can't see any link at all between freedom of contract for individuals and an International team "taking advantage" of it.

Oops I meant the Kolpak, ruling exempting folk with E.U passports from Player quotas, not Bosman. Anyway even if they don't show up and single handedly deliver the County Championship trophy, when they go back to their associate teams they utilise their skills on a much higher level than the contemporaries who don't get the kind of coaching thats given out in County Cricket teams for example. Look at Collins Obuya's batting vis-a-vis the rest of Kenya. Look at the difference between Ireland when they have their county pros and when they don't. Look at Holland without Ryan ten Doeschate.

 

[jashan83]

Most people point out that taking Test Status away would not do any good. Well keep the test status with them, but if you are giving the test status and them and also massive funding then give the same to share to Kenya, Afghanistan, Ireland or Scotland. That is the thing that is so pathetic. Poor Ireland just get money to cover their cost in world cup and if they go to next round they have to pay from their own pockets (Which are small), while Bangladesh get loads of money for same tournament with pathetic performances. The system is so unfair

 

[Hurricane]

^ That is a different issue to what this thread is about.

You can't take away Bangers test status so that they are treated equally with Ireland. (If that is what you are thinking). I also don't see the need for Ireland to be treated the same as Bangers.

I would rather Bangers succeed than Ireland anyways as cricket is popular in Bangerland.

 

[jashan83]

^ That is a different issue to what this thread is about.

You can't take away Bangers test status so that they are treated equally with Ireland. (If that is what you are thinking). I also don't see the need for Ireland to be treated the same as Bangers.

I would rather Bangers succeed than Ireland anyways as cricket is popular in Bangerland.

Test status comes with a complete package:- Part of FTP, 15 times the funding, direct qualification into ICC Tournament, Vote in the executive committee. Well even if cricket is popular they are not performing and it is not like they did not get chances. And for teams which are showing the performance they are not getting any chances.

Either we should define what is a test team and what is an Associate. In 2000 neither Kenya, Bangladesh or Ireland had first class status and just based on 1 victory in World Cup (They had not being good in the ICC Trophy before barely winning one) they got test status. After test status they got funding and had a First Class Structure Developed (So Called). The question is why do it only for Bangladesh and why not for Ireland or Afghanistan or Nepal(Cricket is no 1 game in Afghanistan and Nepal. For matches more than 10000 people turn out to watch their stars). The Afghans and Irish have shown some potential.

 

[Hurricane]

^This is a whole new thread topic. We have debated before, and will again, whether Ireland deserve test status. I never participated much in the thread as I am not an expert on Irish cricket. My personal vote is that we have enough struggling to make it teams in test match cricket right now. Adding a 3rd and 4th would be a terrible idea. When and if Bangers and Zimbos are a success or when we have given up on them we can try Ireland. I will take back this view if Ireland make the semi finals at the next world cup.

If you just want Ireland to be given more funding - I don't know what to say - I am sure funds are limited.

 

[jashan83]

Personally I feel it is high time to be making Test Cricket based on Merit. Just because one nation is a Test nation and the team level even worse than Associate does not give it any right to have direct qualification to World Cup or World Twenty20

It is time we have 2 Tier in Test

Tier 1:- Aus, Eng, Ind, NZ, Pak, SA, SL & WI
Tier 2:- Afg, BD, Can, Ire, Ken, Neth, Scot & Zim

2013 to 2017 The Tier remain the same

In 2017
Top 4 in Tier 1 play the World Test Championship

Bottom 2 Tier 1+ Top 2 Tier 2 play a Challenge Test Championship:- Top 2 make it into Tier 1 & rest 2 relegated back to Tier 2

Bottom 2 of Tier 2 get relegated back into World Cricket League

Bangladesh & Zimbabwe having Test Status and Ireland not having is highly fair for following reason

1. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe get share to 7.5% of ICC Earning each year which is roughly 7.5 M$ a year while teams like Afghans and Ireland just get meager 0.6 M$ a year. Due to this fact Bangladesh and Zimbabwe get money to tour other nations while Afghans and Irish have to work hard to make end meets and keep whole team professional

2. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe due to their test status in a non justifiable way make a direct entry into tournament like WC, World Twenty20 or Champion Trophy while Afghans and Irish have to fight with 12 or 16 teams to make it where just 1 upset can put them out of the tournament

3. BD and Zim get to be part of FTP where they get exposure against better teams while Afghans and Ireland have to beg for 1 or 2 ODI's

4. As being part of FTP they get to host nations like Ind, Eng, Pak or Aus which brings in additional income for the hosts which Irish or Afghan do not get

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are not cut above Ireland or Afghans. They are better due to unfair advantage of more exposure and funding they have. Make the system more fair then it will be no problems

Test status comes with a complete package:- Part of FTP, 15 times the funding, direct qualification into ICC Tournament, Vote in the executive committee. Well even if cricket is popular they are not performing and it is not like they did not get chances. And for teams which are showing the performance they are not getting any chances.

Either we should define what is a test team and what is an Associate. In 2000 neither Kenya, Bangladesh or Ireland had first class status and just based on 1 victory in World Cup (They had not being good in the ICC Trophy before barely winning one) they got test status. After test status they got funding and had a First Class Structure Developed (So Called). The question is why do it only for Bangladesh and why not for Ireland or Afghanistan or Nepal(Cricket is no 1 game in Afghanistan and Nepal. For matches more than 10000 people turn out to watch their stars). The Afghans and Irish have shown some potential.

^This is a whole new thread topic. We have debated before, and will again, whether Ireland deserve test status. I never participated much in the thread as I am not an expert on Irish cricket. My personal vote is that we have enough struggling to make it teams in test match cricket right now. Adding a 3rd and 4th would be a terrible idea. When and if Bangers and Zimbos are a success or when we have given up on them we can try Ireland. I will take back this view if Ireland make the semi finals at the next world cup.

If you just want Ireland to be given more funding - I don't know what to say - I am sure funds are limited.

If funds are limited then distribute them in a limited way. No sense in spending just on Bangladesh just because they are a important vote.

Kindly see the posts above. Nobody is saying that give Ireland a test status, rather it is about Bangladesh getting to a place where they deserve. Check the posts I have made on this thread and then kindly give your views

 

[Hurricane]

^ I have re-read your posts - I think Bangers deserve test status based on how they have played in the past 2 years ever since Tamim and Shakib started firing. I am alarmed how they have taken a step back. I am hoping this is temporary.

I think Zimbos deserve test status based on how well they played NZ.

Therefore I don't think we need a two tier system you have proposed.

If this means they are treated in a superior fashion to Ireland so be it. We need to concentrate our investments rather than spreading them around.

Once we give up on Bangers then we can do a second tier of tests like you have proposed. But it is not that time yet.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The only people who worry about having a weak side with Test status are the stats mongers. They should give Vatican City, Malta and San Marino Test status and see what the beloved guru filter makes of that.

 

[marc71178]

Oops I meant the Kolpak, ruling exempting folk with E.U passports from Player quotas, not Bosman. Anyway even if they don't show up and single handedly deliver the County Championship trophy, when they go back to their associate teams they utilise their skills on a much higher level than the contemporaries who don't get the kind of coaching thats given out in County Cricket teams for example. Look at Collins Obuya's batting vis-a-vis the rest of Kenya. Look at the difference between Ireland when they have their county pros and when they don't. Look at Holland without Ryan ten Doeschate.

But the thing is, they're not good enough to be signed up. Counties would gain nothing from signing any of these players, so they're not going to, pure and simple.

 

[jashan83]

^ I have re-read your posts - I think Bangers deserve test status based on how they have played in the past 2 years ever since Tamim and Shakib started firing. I am alarmed how they have taken a step back. I am hoping this is temporary.

I think Zimbos deserve test status based on how well they played NZ.

Therefore I don't think we need a two tier system you have proposed.

If this means they are treated in a superior fashion to Ireland so be it. We need to concentrate our investments rather than spreading them around.

Once we give up on Bangers then we can do a second tier of tests like you have proposed. But it is not that time yet.

With 3 wins out of 72 Test (1 against Zimbos and 2 against Windies B Team) and 62 losses I can't see ICC wasting more money. If anyone was a business he would have lost patience in 3 years and here it is 10 years.

I rather put the money on more Athletic Afghans who have such an awesome pace battery and batting.

They won the Intercontinental Trophy in a tournament which had Zimbabwe playing. This was the similar Zimbabwe line up which now plays tests and defeated Banglas and played nicely with NZ

The Zimbos did not even reach the final of that tournament . And I don't understand why ICC needs to spend money on countries like India, Australia, England who have got more than enough of their own sources through FTP. The money is there. It is not well spent.

Ask the Bangladesh to play with the Associates and we will be weeping how ICC is wasting it's money. There is not doubt inn that